[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Truck carrying 'low-level' radioactive tools crashes
DOT rulemakings require many reviews, including
Office of Management and Budget review for "significant" rulemakings,
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Federalism Review (impact on state and local governments and Indian tribes)
Regulatory Flexibility Act review (impact on small entities)
Paperwork Reduction Act review (Generally requires more paperwork.)
What additional reviews did you have in mind?
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Jack_Earley@RL.GOV wrote:
> Maybe a little amendment to any of these laws is in order--like requiring a
> cost-benefit analysis before any of them are passed. In CO, legislators are
> required to calculate prison bed occupancy for any new law they propose.
>
> Jack Earley
> Radiological Engineer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Muckerheide [mailto:muckerheide@attbi.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:24 AM
> To: Barbara Hamrick; info@eic.nu; jack_earley@rl.gov
> Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: Re: Truck carrying 'low-level' radioactive tools crashes
>
> Hi Barbara,
>
> I appreciate what you say in the specifics below. But consider that Boxer et
> al. are a product of being driven by NCRP "officials" and other
> Congress-crawlers to reinforce "concerns" about radiation down to 1 mr/yr!
>
> Just because these denizens supported a limit of 100 mr/yr, doesn't mean
> that they don't go around Congress and other gullible officialdom strongly
> selling the LNT (way beyond what they got out of some more balanced NCRP
> report committee) saying that "we don't know" and "100 is a balance" that is
> struck for "political" (not scientific) reasons, meaning that they imply
> that the "industry" just drags its feet and influences the limits and
> regulations until it can be pushed to meet ever new standards (and that "we
> can push new standards without having to change the 100 limit" by the rubric
> that the 100 must be "shared by all potential exposure sources" (while
> ignoring variations in background or medical uses, with limited nodding
> acknowledgement at unnecessary medical exposures.
>
> This then justifies, e.g., a 4 mr/yr in water limit at Yucca Mt. To be met
> through costly calculations for releases 10s or 100s of thousands of years
> in the future!? :-( But also in immediate terms, a 4 mr/yr limit on radium
> and uranium, etc., in drinking water!? :-( And NCRP et al. (including even
> HPS "Washington reps") are there giving Congress-persons the cover that what
> they are doing is just a "reasonable conservatism" over the limit
> recommendations that these organizations produce formally.
>
> This is compounded by the rad protection industry pushing for the costs of
> ever more advanced instruments and capabilities, and claimed to be
> "manageable costs," always improving the measurement and compliance
> technologies. Of course, the primary way that the costs are made
> "manageable" is to be sure they are being paid by the uniformed and gullible
> public, reinforced by official fear-mongering to get them to think they are
> being "protected." (That's why it's a "protection racket," which is a
> slander to a mafia "protection racket" since if you didn't pay you really
> would get your legs broken! They don't just run a con on the gullible! :-)
>
> Bottom line: "Boxer is gullible." She is a victim of the officials that know
> better, but do not tell the truth. We need to focus on the real problem, or
> we can't make any progress. Even if you get to Boxer, that wouldn't stop
> NCRP from conning someone else. The truth needs to be articulated by the
> people that know better; and the light must be shined on the source of the
> infection.
>
> And it ain't the media or the politicians!
>
> Regards, Jim
>
>
> on 8/14/02 11:08 PM, BLHamrick@AOL.COM at BLHamrick@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 08/14/2002 7:45:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > muckerheide@attbi.com writes:
> >
> >
> >> The killers are those that lie to them! The NCRP/ICRP/IAEA/BRER. Even the
> >> reg agencies are not "the experts." They (the leaders) ignore their own
> >>
> >
> > It is much worse than that here in California. The NCRP still recommends
> 100
> > millirem per year for public dose, but even that is not adequate for our
> > honorable <cough, hack, ahem> representatives. They are still seeking
> "zero"
> > radiation above background for release of decommissioned sites, and wastes
> > that are released from those sites (e.g., soil that has been deemed to be
> > releasable for unrestricted use from a radiological standpoint, but which
> may
> > contain hazardous elements).
> >
> > The politicians are as much or more to blame than the NCRP, et al, because
> > they are the ones with the power to seduce the monied class, and prevent
> any
> > science from entering the debate whatsoever. Want proof? Go to
> > www.senate.ca.gov, click on "Legislation," and search for SB 1444, SB
> 1970,
> > SB 1623, SB 2065 or AB 2214, and read some of the committee analyses. I
> > haven't read those just out yesterday, so don't know where they've come to
> > yet, but the early analyses are straight out of
> > Comedy Central for physics nerds.
> >
> > A little knowledge is dangerous, but virtually no knowledge is terrifying.
> >
> > Barbara <---speaking solely on her own, little, unadulterated behalf
> >
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/